Vigil v. Colvin
805 F.3d 1199
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Vigil applied for disability benefits (DIB and SSI) alleging knee/ankle pain, anxiety, depression, and back/heel pain.
- An ALJ held a hearing with Vigil represented by counsel and heard testimony from Vigil and a vocational expert.
- The ALJ found severe impairments: lumbar degenerative changes, left knee ACL repair history, obesity, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder.
- The ALJ concluded Vigil could perform light work with restrictions: occasional bending/squatting/kneeling, no climbing, occasional foot/leg controls, no complex tasks, SVP 1–2, and no dealing with the public.
- The ALJ found Vigil could perform other work in the national economy (step five) and denied benefits; the Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Summerlin’s opinion | Vigil argues standing/walking limits backdrop Dr. Summerlin’s opinion. | Vigil’s standing/walking restrictions are supported by exam findings and should be given weight. | ALJ gave legitimate reasons for moderate weight and did not err. |
| Whether the RFC adequately accounts for memory/concentration deficits | ALJ should include explicit concentration/persistence limits rather than rely on SVP unskilled work. | Moderate concentration/persistence limits were captured by limiting to SVP 1–2; unskilled work addresses these deficits. | Limiting to unskilled work adequately accounts for moderate limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2012) (requirements for weighing medical opinions; factors in 404.1527(c))
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (summary of the five-step disability evaluation process)
- Mays v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 569 (10th Cir. 2014) (standard of review; substantial evidence and legal standards)
- Newbold v. Colvin, 718 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2013) (avoid reweighing evidence; defer to agency findings)
- Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2003) (weight given to medical opinions; factors to consider)
- Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2012) (limitations of unskilled work and mental impairment considerations)